We interpret things routinely. You will read this and try to figure out what I tried to say, respond to it and I will then post that you misinterpreted everything I wrote and start a flame warâ¦

The same is true with law, the defendant and the claimant interpret the law to be in their favor, the judge adjudicates the case based on his interpretation of what the law says and what was demonstrated by each party.

Some parts of the law are straightforward, if after a violent incident between people there is a dead body, you can be sure it is homicide. Then you can argue whether it was manslaughter (an accident) or first degree murder (intentional), depending on who's paying you.

Now, the right to bear arms... It is not clear at all. Does it include automatic assault weapons? How about howitzers? Switchblades? Nuclear warheads? It does NOT enumerate what kind of arms and thus, it is quite open to interpretation.

Regarding the cost of infrastructure, in Mexico there is an experiment going on. They married the 700 Mhz band (previously used for TV) with the 20 thousand something kilometer fiber network owned by the Federal Electricity Commission (a government body, charged with the production and distribution of electricity), mostly dark, to create a national network which is being auctioned off. AT&T, for example, is one of bidders, but the catch is they can't sell services to the public; they must sell services to other companies, which in turn will be selling broadband and celullar services to the public

The idea is that through this arrangement, there will be dozens (perhaps hundreds) of "virtual carriers" serving the public but without needing to invest many millions in infrastructure...

As an idea, I think it is very good but we have to wait and see what the actual implementation really is...

Now, this could not be done in the good ol' US of A because it would be socialist... So consumers gets the shaft, in the name of capitalism...

I happen to have a Samsung fridge which has been working for over 10 years... I plan to replace it because the paint and the seals are starting to look bad; not because it is failing.

The Samsung replaced a very old Frigidaire unit which basically I threw out because the Samsung had reduced power consumption, not because the Frigidaire was failing.

Now, recently I replaced an LG air-conditioned which was almost 10 years old and started to fail. I went an bought another LG unit, technically the same model, only to find it is a POS. The air conduit is actually polystyrene; I thought it was part of the packaging material, but no, it is a structural part of the unit. Every part inside looks like is as thin as possible without a risk of it breaking on first use. If it lasts a couple of years I will be surprised.

I planned to change the fridge before Xmas, but affer the air-conditioned I paused; it needs more investigation before spending a good deal of money.

Now, I wonder, what brand of fridge could I buy that will not crap-out in a couple of years?

You are saying Jobs = Apple, which is not true. Jobs without Wozniak and thousands of other engineers and scientists, would have a been a sode-pop seller... In other words, he created nothing and took credit for the creations of other people. Google Jobs' insistence of having his name on every Apple patent...

Now, Ritchie, he co-authored Unix. He did not manage the creation of Unix. And he created the programming language C. Personal accomplishments.

I don't know where in Texas you were, but I was in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio working for a few years.

There is no way to get from one place to another without a car, even if Point A is very near Point B.

After my first visit, I always rented a car. Walking is just out of the question, even if the distance is a few blocks.

But the same is true in other States in the US, for example, downtown Miami is walkable, every other place in Florida, requires a car.

Where I live in Mexico, within six blocks around I have two shopping malls, several doctors' offices, veterinarians, two bars (three, if you count the billiard's place), two phamacies, in short, all the services. I walk most of the time and take my car only if I will be carrying a heavy load.

Negligence: A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act

The Romans had willful negligence, which is called gross negligence in Common Law (English)-based legal systems and dolo (dolus) in Roman-derived legal systems.

So you are wrong, there is willful negligence! And in my opinion BP committed gross negligence because their engineers knew the possible consequences of their acts.

I don't even look at little girls, much less talk to them...Once they are 18+, then we'll see.

Sexism aside; I'm the father of two girls, both of which had computers and other paraphernalia around them since they were born to a geeky father, whose live revolves around coding... And none of them is even remotely interested in computers beyond email, FB or whatever they use now.

One, graduated in business administration with a specialty in hotel and restaurant management; the other is studying Forensic Science (Criminalistics/Criminology).

The first can walk into a room filled with 30 strangers and in 30 minutes have 30 new friends; the latter, has about two friends, because she's geeky, but NOT interested in computers.

As a geek, what is this bullshit that one has to be interested in computers and particularly in coding? There is engineering, math and yes, criminalistics.

Sorry to burst your buble. Right next door, in Mexico, with a much more relaxed airport security, never had an airplane hijacked... Until 2009, years after the FAA imposed flight restrictions went into effect(1).

On the other hand, in mainland China, there was an attempted hijack in 2012!

If airport security was a solution to plane hijacking, why would a country without any security (Mexico) not suffer from it and a paranoid state (China) recently had to deal with it?

If you recall, in the past (60's-80's) U.S. planes were hijacked to Havana; in the 90's the trend was reversed: Cuban planes were hijacked and taken to the U.S. Which brings the question again, if the totalitarian Cuban police was unable to stop the hijackings, why should it work in the U.S.?

Now see the perverse incentives: a flight taken to Havana was heralded as taken by "people's heros" and gave a lot of cred in certain circles; turn the coin and see the other face: hijacking a Cuban plane and taking it into the U.S. will NOT land you in jail; it will grant you political asylum!

(1) FAA rules apply to all flights landing on the U.S. even if they originated elsewhere. There used to be smoking flights to/from the U.S. (Air France, Mexicana, TACA, etc.) until the FAA ruled that any flights originating or landing in the U.S. had to be non-smoking, regardless of the carrier's flag. The same was applied to security: no flight bound to the U.S. is allowed to land if there are not TSA-like security measures in the originating country . So, in effect, the FAA and TSA determine what security measures are taken on airports as distant as Buenos Aires.

Frankly, I don't care if MS is standing up out of self-interest or for some other cause, the tyrants in D.C. need to be stopped. Period.

You can't apply U.S. laws to the world at large, regardless of your 'legal' standing.

Many U.S. organizations have presence and pay taxes in many different jurisdictions, making them subject to that particular territory's law. Will the U.S. allow some other country to violate U.S. laws because the subsidiary is present, in say, Aman and thus, by extension, the entire organization is subject to Aman's Law?

The answer is no, because jurisdiction is territorial. You can't apply Ireland's law to MS in the U.S. simply because they have a corporate office there, thus the reverse is true too: you can' t apply U.S. law to a subsidiary in Ireland.

Who owns it is irrelevant; corporations are legal entities of their own, regardless of ownership. Ships owned by, say Americans (most cruise ships for example), are registered in Panama, thus bypassing U.S. Labor laws because who owns them is irrelevant.

Trust me, you don't want to go there: it will open lawsuits against U.S. firms, under U.S. laws, against the owners of such ships and other corporations that use underage labor, exceed working hours / conditions, etc. in other countries.

It would basically make International Law obsolete as we know it.

It appears that the U.S. Government is bent in destroying the American economy while 'preserving' American security.